May 1, 2015
Paranoid Thinking and Politics
Many believe those who espouse an opposing view are attacking them. This fear, called “reality” by the “attacked”, is a disorder that disables levelheaded communication while granting the anxiety prone person a substantive argument to continue their paranoid thinking. It is a circuitous syndrome playing on its own fears. Anxiety, as viewed by the psychological practitioner, is the core of mental health or ill health. How one deals, or doesn’t deal, with doom-laden fears and apprehensions will manifest itself in delusional thinking and continued anxiety then take root in paranoid extremism. Though one can relieve one’s self of mild anxiety, if not addressed, it can lead to repetitive circles of anxious fears feeding on themselves. Anxiety can grow and often does as it mixes with delusional and paranoid thinking.
The political scene amply illustrates the various states of paranoia. Neither side is immune to the insidious nature of the disorder. And, because the person is paranoid, it is always someone or something else that is the cause of their frustrations and outbursts, not themselves. There are fewer disorders more difficult to understand than this one. It is the source of much frustration between people, especially when discussing delicate but important distinctions in politics and religion.
There are no simple cures for this disorder. Understanding or avoiding “hot” topics that bring the disorder to the fore are about all the average person can do. The unfortunate result of this approach leaves the person with little of importance to discuss while adding to their perception that they are alone in their reality.
About Ed Anderson
I am "non-religious", not an atheist as some suppose, since after reading what I have written many wonder if I believe in "God", I just don't have a name for the concept, "God", nor do I have an origination story or theological mystery tour to stretch your faith. (I have no proof of what I believe and I wonder if my belief in "God" is supportable as I have increasing doubts.) I just can't accept an inflexible point of view that says, "I know what you need, and I know what you should know and here it is, you can have it too." Religionists present yet another obstacle to finding "truth" as they claim to have succeeded exclusively in finding it.
Having been a part of the religious scene for years it is clear to me how easily duped we are to believe in something we have no proof of, has caused an abundance of divisions, and "territorialized" people into believers and non-believers.
Furthermore, my belief in "God" equates to the larger perspective which includes an awareness of "God" in everything. I speculate at times whether or not consciousness is "God" So, my belief in "God" does not necessarily match up to the Christian/Judaeo tradition of a being existing somewhere in the beyond or in one's "heart". If there is a "God" he/she/it could be anywhere and in anything.
Though I believe in God, it is not a belief in the God of Scripture. Too many “holes” in Scripture to satisfy my inquiring mind. It may indeed point me in the right direction but I find it not only unreliable but full of plagiaristic thought and re-writing of some of history’s interesting solutions. I much prefer to trust the minds of men and women who conjecture on the basis of what we now know of our universe than those men and women who trust the minds of ancient spiritual guides who, in turn, contributed to a book allegedly “inspired” by God. It is all unprovable, either side of this argument, but I prefer to invest most of my thinking in current ideas rather than those that show little support in logic. Do I hear an "Amen"?
View all posts by Ed Anderson
Leave a Reply